[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:19:37 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář
<rkrcmar@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...e.de>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
He Chen <he.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@...el.com>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: move FPU state into separate cache
On 03/29/2017 02:09 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> They're adjacent already, which poses a problem for the struct layout
> randomization plugin, since adjacency may no longer be true (after
> layout randomization). This adjacency (or not) isn't really the
> problem: it's that FPU state size is only known at runtime. Another
> solution would be to have FPU state be a fixed size...
We don't want that. It varies from a couple hundred bytes to ~3k on
newer CPUs. We don't want to eat an extra 2.5k per task on the older
processors.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
